Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ― Ted Turner, founder of CNN

Forty years ago a body of the world’s preeminent climate scientists gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, and predicted the “CO2-climate problem” aka global warming would become the world’s major environmental problem. 

Today an even larger group, over 11,000 climate scientists from around the world, issued a warning “that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.” To solve the problem, the climate scientists not only want to dump fossil fuels, but they also want “far fewer humans on the planet.”

“[T]he world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women” (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018).

The topics below were discussed by Dr. Richard Day March 20, 1969, before students and health professionals at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. At the time, Day was National Medical Director of Planned Parenthood and Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

  • population control; 
  • permission to have babies; 
  • redirecting the purpose of sex – sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex; 
  • contraception universally available to all;
  • sex education and canalizing of youth as a tool of world government; 
  • tax funded abortion as population control; 
  • encouraging homosexuality; 
  • technology used for reproduction without sex; 
  • families to diminish in importance; 
  • euthanasia and the “demise pill”; 
  • limiting access to affordable medical care makes eliminating elderly easier; 
  • medicine would be tightly controlled; 
  • elimination of private doctors; 
  • new difficult to diagnose and untreatable diseases; 
  • suppressing cancer cures as a means of population control; 
  • inducing heart attacks as a form of assassination; 
  • education as a tool for accelerating the onset of puberty and evolution; 
  • blending all religions into one and eliminating the old religions; 
  • changing the Holy Bible through revisions of key words; 
  • restructuring education as a tool of indoctrination; 
  • schools as the hub of the community;
  • controlling who has access to information;  
  • having books disappear from the libraries; 
  • changing laws to promote moral and social chaos; t
  • encouraging drug abuse to create a jungle atmosphere in cities and towns; 
  • promote alcohol abuse; 
  • restrictions on travel; 
  • the need for more jails and using hospitals as jails; 
  • no more psychological or physical security; 
  • crime used to manage society; 
  • curtailment of US industrial pre-eminence; 
  • shifting populations and economies – tearing out the social roots; 
  • sports as a tool of social engineering and change; 
  • sex and violence inculcated through entertainment; 
  • travel restrictions and implanted I.D. cards; 
  • know how people respond – making them do what you want; 
  • falsified scientific research; 
  • use of terrorism; 
  • surveillance implants and televisions that watch you; 
  • making home ownership a thing of the past; and
  • implementing a totalitarian global system.

Now that these “preeminent” climate scientists have said that population control will save the planet from its “climate emergency,” the major media will make population control  America’s latest polarizing issue joining climate change, gun control, and vaccines.

“Capitalists grow wealth. Socialists redistribute wealth…. but population grows, so the Socialist population control kicks in in the form of eugenics.” ― A.E. Samaan

For more on the story, see Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say and World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency

Read Full Post »

Perky Katie Couric separately interviewed both Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz about global cooling-warming/climate change, and the contrast is striking.

Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina

Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina

Couric began questioning Ted Cruz with the statement, “97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade.”

Cruz responded saying that the “97% of scientists” claim is based on a discredited study and that there hasn’t been any global warming in 17 years. “It’s not happening,” Cruz said.

Then Cruz talked about how the media pushed “Global Cooling” on us in the 1970’s, and whether it’s global cooling or global warming, the basic motive behind it is always the same: about increased government control of the economy. And then Cruz said that liberals changed the name to “climate change”, so they could always claim there was a problem regardless of whether it got hotter or colder. Cruz further said that the Democrats are abandoning union workers in favor of environmentalists, creating an opening for Republicans.

So Cruz started with a question meant to put him on the defensive, and turned it around to (a) disprove global warming (b) explain how it is scam used by the government to control us and (c) turn it into an opening to attract union voters. And he did it with a manner that was gentle and friendly and smart. …

When Couric asked Carly Fiorina if she thought man-made global warming was a problem, her response was quite telling:

[Fiorina] hemmed and hawed … that it wasn’t a problem compared to fighting ISIS and other issues, but didn’t want to answer the basic question. She also said that “a single nation acting [alone can make no difference at all]….” She says we have to focus on innovation, like clean coal. But she doesn’t answer the basic question until finally at the end, when asked for the fourth or fifth time, Carly admits that “climate change” is real [issue], just not as important as other issues.

Carly’s interview was bad for several reasons. First, she looked evasive on answering the basic, simple question of whether man-made climate change is real, and she looked evasive because she was evasive. Not good. Secondly, she got the answer wrong. As we all know, there has been no global warming for 17 or 18 years. Thirdly, while she correctly stated that the US could not solve the “problem” alone, she bought into the Left’s argument that there is a problem. She accepted the premise of their argument, and once she does that, she operates on the defensive. (Emphasis mine) After watching that interview a low-information voter might think “Well, even Republicans agree it’s real, now I have to figure out who is better on this issue.”

The neo-conservative National Review praised Fioria‘s global-warming answers in her interview with Couric.

For the candidates’ global-warming interviews on youtube, see Katie Couric Interviews Sen. Ted Cruz on Climate Change and Carly Fiorina makes mincemeat of interviewer Katie Couric – Climate change.

For more of the two commentaries, see What happens when Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are compared head to head? and Carly Fiorina Shows How to Address the Left on Climate Change.

Read Full Post »

Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) has suggested applying RICO laws to global warming skeptics:

The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.

The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.

For more on the story, see Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

Read Full Post »